(snip, snip)
> Let's take an example; this evening I'm planning on walking down the
> street and finding a place to have dinner. I can chose cheap or
> expensive restaurants, and once I've decided, I can chose among a
> list
> of items of varying costs. Let's say I settle on a medium priced
> place
> and order a meal for $22.50 (plus tip). Those are all real choices
> and
> represent meaningful figures. But, to say that it would be 'better'
> for
> me to spend the $22.50 on a couple of reams of paper and renting a
> DVD
> is not. I may indeed *need* the paper and *want* the DVD, but they
> aren't meaningful choices as compared to my intent of having
> dinner.
Of course, once you have made a decision the opportunity costs are sunk
(i.e. unrecoverable) in this case. At that point they become
irrelevant. They are only relevant prior to actually making the
decision. It is when you sit there trying to make the decision that you
look at these costs.
Since no decision has been made on Kyoto and the alternatives the
opportunity costs are not sunk.
Bissell here:
Let me get this straight; the only way *not* to lose the opportunity
costs (sunk) is to do nothing? If we do nothing where is the money? See
the cat, see the cradle?
Steven
To say that "I will not be free till all
humans (or sentient creatures) are free" is
simply to cave in to a kind of nirvana-
stupor, to abdicate our humanity, to define
ourselves as losers.
Hakim Bey
The Temporary Autonomous Zone, 1985
|